You know, God's honest truth it was in there then I tried to clean it up (still learning the twitter copy and paste that Spurscrazed showed me) it just didn't work. Was being lazy and didn't want to edit it. My apologies to Jeff...lol

I'll say this again. Giving that contract to Manu, ALLOWS us to spend more. A lesser contract, we are under the cap, by a little, and we have no more available $. So, if Holt is ok with spending a few extra (under luxury tax for sure), and we can still add a player of need, this all makes sense. And for all of the complaining on this particular board, if the Spurs had let Manu sign elsewhere, for slightly more, they would have had a fan mutiny on their hands.

And yet in the Bonner Farewell tour thread, you're all for giving Bonner all his money under the amnesty program. And you claim it would allow more money to sign someone else.

Which is it? Just curious, since absolutely nothing offered on this board means squat in the actual future of the Spurs.

I'll say this again. Giving that contract to Manu, ALLOWS us to spend more. A lesser contract, we are under the cap, by a little, and we have no more available $. So, if Holt is ok with spending a few extra (under luxury tax for sure), and we can still add a player of need, this all makes sense. And for all of the complaining on this particular board, if the Spurs had let Manu sign elsewhere, for slightly more, they would have had a fan mutiny on their hands.

This needs to be emblazoned across the first message in this thread.

Giving this contract to Manu means we can sign another player. A smaller contract means that we could not. Does it make any sense? No, not at all, but that's the way it works under the NBA's bizarre cap rules.

Next person to say "We should've given Manu less and then signed AK/Ellis/Korver/Smith/whoever!" gets a

Giving this contract to Manu means we can sign another player. A smaller contract means that we could not. Does it make any sense? No, not at all, but that's the way it works under the NBA's bizarre cap rules.

Next person to say "We should've given Manu less and then signed AK/Ellis/Korver/Smith/whoever!" gets a

It is pretty difficult to understand. Here is Larry Coon's try at an explanation.NBA Salary Cap FAQ

Quote:

26. How do exceptions count against the cap? Does being under the cap always mean that a team has room to sign free agents? Do teams ever lose their exceptions?

If a team is below the cap, then its Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level (either the Taxpayer or Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level, whichever applies to the team) and/or trade exceptions are added to their team salary, and the league treats the team as though they are over the cap1. This is to prevent a loophole, in a manner similar to free agent amounts (see question number 38). A team can't act like it's under the cap and sign free agents using cap room, and then use their Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level and/or trade exceptions. Consequently, the exceptions are added to their team salary (putting the team over the cap) if the team is under the cap and adding the exceptions puts them over the cap. If a team is already over the cap, then the exceptions are not added to their team salary. There would be no point in doing so, since there is no cap room for signing free agents.

So being under the cap does not necessarily mean a team has room to sign free agents. For example, assume the cap is $58 million, and a team has $51.5 million committed to salaries. They also have a Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception for $5 million and a trade exception for $5.5 million. Even though their salaries put them $6.5 million under the cap, their exceptions also count toward their team salary, increasing their total to $62 million, or $4 million over the cap. So the team actually has no cap room to sign free agents, and instead must use its exceptions to sign players.

Teams have the option to renounce their exceptions in order to reclaim their cap room. So in the example above, if the team renounced their Traded Player and Mid-Level exceptions, then the $10.5 million is taken off their team salary, which then totals $51.5 million, leaving them with $6.5 million of cap room which then can be used to sign free agent(s).

Starting January 10 (February 10 in 2011-12) of each season, the Mid-Level (Non-Taxpayer, Taxpayer and Room), Bird (Larry Bird, Early Bird and Non-Bird) and Bi-Annual exceptions begin to pro-rate2 (reduce in value). For example, if there are 170 days in the season, then these exceptions reduce in value each day by 1/170 of the amount remaining on January 10. So if a team had a $5 million Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception and spent $1 million before the start of the season, then on January 10, and each day thereafter, it would reduce in value by 1/170 of $4 million, or $23,529. If the team signs another player on February 1 for $1 million, the daily pro-ration would still be 1/170 of $4 million.

A team's exceptions may be lost entirely, or the team may never receive them to begin with. This happens when their team salary is so low that when the exceptions are added to the team salary, the sum is still below the salary cap. If this happens when the exceptions arise, then the team doesn't get their exceptions at all. If the team salary ever drops below this level during the year, then any unused portions of their exceptions are lost (and do not return if the team salary increases).

For example, assume there is a $58 million salary cap, and during the offseason a team has $50 million committed to salaries, along with a Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception for $5 million, a trade exception for $2.5 million, and an unrenounced free agent whose free agent amount is $2 million. Their salaries and exceptions total $59.5 million, or $1.5 million over the cap. What if their free agent signs with another team? The $2 million free agent amount comes off their cap, so their team salary (including their remaining exceptions) drops to $57.5 million. This total is below the cap so the team loses its Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level and trade exceptions.

There is logic behind this. The whole idea behind an "exception" is that it is an exception to the rule which says a team cannot go over the salary cap. In other words, an exception is a mechanism which allows a team to function above the cap. If a team isn't over the cap, then the concept of an exception is moot. Therefore, if a team's team salary ever drops this far, its exceptions go away. A rule of thumb is that a team may have either exceptions or cap room, but it can't have both at the same time. However, a team in this situation does qualify to use the Room Mid-Level exception (see question number 25).

they are already at the cap without re-signing Neal so they could have given Manu less money.........re-signed Neal and got their mid level exemption anyway. Manu at 7 million per is still too much.

Why does it matter if they pay Manu 7mil instead of 5m and still hit the cap? It does't effect their cap flexibility much in the future except for maybe 5m available instead of 3 when Bonner is done. Neal is Bird rights free agent, they can exceed the cap to sign him, the luxury tax is not really a major player either way. 7m now for Gino show Kawhi that if he stays loyal to the Spurs next contract and later, they'll treat him right when time comes. There are multiple considerations in building a team.

Why does it matter if they pay Manu 7mil instead of 5m and still hit the cap? It does't effect their cap flexibility much in the future except for maybe 5m available instead of 3 when Bonner is done. Neal is Bird rights free agent, they can exceed the cap to sign him, the luxury tax is not really a major player either way. 7m now for Gino show Kawhi that if he stays loyal to the Spurs next contract and later, they'll treat him right when time comes. There are multiple considerations in building a team.

I know they can go over the cap to re-sign Neal but why pay Manu and Splitter those figures if you don't have to do it? I would have waited for Tiago to get an offer sheet. The Manu part seems like the Spurs are outbidding themselves for no reason. You get a contract on future performance not from prior success. If that's the case give Duncan 30 million a year for the next five years. On that argument you win easily. Kawhi doesn't need to see Manu get overpaid to know the Spurs' loyalty. Kawhi knows he is in a class organization without that example.

Yes. With one good hamstring he did as good a job a as he could. He didn't have 8 turnovers. They game planned for Green and never recovered. But the Heat didn't do anything special for Tiago or Manu. Ginobli gave them plenty of extra possessions. Kawhi was a monster and had the toughest assignment, defend Lebron and put up good numbers. But that's 16 million well spent?

After the finals I was ready to cut Manu loose , But a couple of weeks later reality has set back in and a player like Manu deserves to finish his career with the spurs. So Manu and Timmy can ride off into the basketball sunset together.

Mr Jones, I have to tell you. And, yes I know. Manu's hammy was worse in the playoffs than Tony's. Tony had nothing but a tightness due to not showing up in time for game 3. Lebron guarded him in game 6 and 7, and he went deep freeze. Plain and simple. Now, I'm not on here over reacting and saying we should get rid of him. Just like most people that understand the Spurs aren't complaining about Manu. They know how important he is to the franchise. You don't think Timmy wasn't thrilled about Manu resigning? We played 7 guys basically throughout the last 2 series. And should have won the title! The Spurs are staying the course. Just like they have throughout the last 15 years. There was never, ever, anyway they were going to sign a chump like Ellis or Evans. They are about winning. Not flash. I just don't get what people on here don't see. This, so far, has been an incredible few days of the off season. Pop and RC know what they are doing. Doesn't take a genius to see the success.

I guess if the Spurs can give Manu whatever Ray Lewis antler spray they have been giving Tim, then this could be quite a bargain. Until then, I am skeptical of the deal.

He needs some fountain of youth Herbs

__________________
Win or lose this is a game -
You could let it pick your brain for weeks and months, just replay it over and over, won't do you any good at all. When someone loses a loved one and they do that it only brings forth anguish. I feel acceptance is sometimes the key, it happened, now you have to react to it. Giving up is not an option.

Yes. With one good hamstring he did as good a job a as he could. He didn't have 8 turnovers. They game planned for Green and never recovered. But the Heat didn't do anything special for Tiago or Manu. Ginobli gave them plenty of extra possessions. Kawhi was a monster and had the toughest assignment, defend Lebron and put up good numbers. But that's 16 million well spent?

A lot of plays factored into that game 6 collapse, but it was so bad with Manu I started to wonder if he was being paid to throw the game (exaggeration) His turnovers were the #1 reason we lost that title IMO. Parker hammy was big, but we showed we could win without him at 100.

Still don't get it? We paid Manu so we could spend MORE money. Oh, in the winner take all game, he went 18/5/3. TP went 3-12, 4 assists and no rebound. Manu had 4 TO. But the only reason we had a chance to win, was Manu Kawhi and Timmy. And Manu was still recovering from his hammy tear. Basically started playing g again game 1 of Lakers series. TP had what they had to call a hamstring strain, because the MRI showed nothing

Still don't get it? We paid Manu so we could spend MORE money. Oh, in the winner take all game, he went 18/5/3. TP went 3-12, 4 assists and no rebound. Manu had 4 TO. But the only reason we had a chance to win, was Manu Kawhi and Timmy. And Manu was still recovering from his hammy tear. Basically started playing g again game 1 of Lakers series. TP had what they had to call a hamstring strain, because the MRI showed nothing

Let's not play the blame game on the Finals. It's just childish and unproductive.

That's true. Check out the Manu posts then. Bottom line, we were within 28 seconds of a ring. And, 99 times outt of 100, we win game 6. We were in that position BECAUSE of the team we had. Not only inclufing Manu, but also BECAUSE of him. And this forum continuslly blasts him. Lets just say this. Our FO thought enough on his contributions to give him 2 more years at $14 million. Just a guess, but I have a feeling RC and Pop are much more qualified to make that call than, say, oh, everyone on here?

So, I guess by dropping it you meant wait until your finished? That's all good. I won't belabor the point. I've made my opinion on Manu, and how expertly we are handling the cap. For this year, and even more so for 2 years from now. As for how the thread, and many like it have responded to the signing of Manu, simply go back and read. But you are right in this, time move forward, and anticipate the next move. I'm certain there is, at least, one.

__________________NO D, NO RING!!!!
With 26 points on 4 of 4 shots from distance in only 20 minutes of PT. Efficient eviceration.
Wolves' fan: ginobili vs. the wolves is like he's just kind of laughing to himself all game...kind of like he thinks it's cute that they're trying to play basketball.[email protected]